Those twin slaughters in Kenya and Tanzania were acts of unvarnished
criminality and cruelty that call for swift retribution. Those who perpetrated
these vile atrocities, and the regimes that aided them, deserve a truly ruthless
retaliation.
But far from being "senseless acts of violence," in the oft-invoked
cliche, these deeds were purposeful. They were war crimes against America,
declarations that the struggle to drive us out of the Islamic world is no longer
confined to the Middle East. It will be waged worldwide, and any U.S. outpost,
anywhere, is now fair game.
We are escalating and expanding our jihad against America! is the message of
Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. Does America have the stomach to fight this war as
long as our enemies? Or will we soon pack up and go home, as even Ronald Reagan
went home after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, leaving Lebanon to
slide into Syria's orbit?
Most Americans remember that after the bombing of the Berlin night club
frequented by U.S. soldiers, Reagan ordered air strikes on Libya that almost
killed Muammar Qaddafi. For years after, Qaddafi was silent. Then, Pan Am 103
suddenly exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the atrocity was traced back --
to Libya and Qaddafi. To this day, he and his agents remain unpunished for that
air massacre.
Our enemies may reveal their character by terrorism in East Africa, but they
are focused men, and their goal and strategy are clear. Islamic terrorists, and
the states that sustain them -- be they Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya or Sudan --
want the removal of all American military power, of our huge diplomatic presence
and of our cultural influence from the Islamic world. Because no Middle Eastern
state could fight a war with the United States, their weapon of choice is
untraceable terrorism -- the weapon of the cowardly and the weak.
If these are the goals, strategy and tactics of our enemies, what are our
goals, strategy and tactics in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East? How do we
propose to win the war of terror being waged against us, other than to glare
into TV cameras and declare our determination to run down and punish terrorists?
Who has more staying power in the Middle East, them or us? Before there are more
American victims of terror, these questions must be addressed.
Back in 1990, some of us opposed a U.S. invasion of Kuwait because we
believed a U.S. triumph would leave us with permanent commitments that America
would not sustain. The crushing of Iraq, we argued, would also unleash the
demons of Islamic extremism and be but the first Arab American war -- and
eventually, the United States, as the British before us, would have to give up
its hegemony in the Gulf.
We lost the argument and supported the nation and army when war came. But
much of what we predicted has come to pass. We were left with a policy of
"dual containment" of Iran and Iraq that Americans seem unwilling to
sustain with arms. Our victory did indeed unleash the demons of fanaticism.
George Bush's Gulf War coalition is history. With the exception of the British,
our NATO allies are almost worthless in the Gulf. U.S. prestige has fallen
steadily in the Arab world since 1991. Saudi Arabia refuses to confirm whether
Iran was behind the Khobar Towers bombing of the U.S. military domicile, for
fear we will retaliate against Iran. And Bibi Netanyahu has told the United
States to go fly a kite; he will take and keep the West Bank land he wants.
Almost alone, the United States soldiers on in the Middle East. But whom and
what are we defending? If it's Europe's oil and Japan's oil, where are the
European and Japanese warships? There is an oil glut on the world market, and
even if the Saudi monarchy should fall, to whom would the next rulers have to
sell their oil?
Ronald Reagan's air strikes on Libya and the Bekaa Valley proved that even
resolute retaliation is no permanent cure for terrorism, for it rarely
eliminates the terrorists themselves. Even when it does, there is no shortage of
new volunteers. The only sure way to end terror is to go to the source and root
out the state sponsors, whether in Khartoum, Teheran, Baghdad, Damascus or
Tripoli.
But as Americans are not prepared for that kind of war, and our allies --
Western or Arab -- are not prepared to support us in any such venture, it is
time to consider whether the United States might be better off leaving the
Middle East to the Middle Easterners. Of what vital interest, after all, is it
to us whose flag flies over what patch of desert? In 1968, populist George
Wallace said of Vietnam: "Win it -- or get out!" Sound advice, too, on
the Middle East.
